Ayn Rand is recapturing the hearts of American conservatives. The Cold War writers individualist philosophy is back in fashion among the Republican faithful. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged has just been released as a movie and while critics call it slow and two-dimensional, Tea Partiers are queuing around the block to see it. Something about Rands take-no-prisoners prose strikes a chord with people exasperated by Obamas tax-and-spend liberalism and desperate for a road-map to liberty.

But Ayn Rand is not a natural pin-up for American conservatives. Her individualism went beyond libertarianism. It was an exciting, revolutionary mix of greed, atheism, materialism and the Marquis de Sade. It comes as no surprise that the 1960s Church of Satan lifted most of its high-camp gospel from Ayn Rand.One of its acolytes notes with approval that, Rands philosophy rejects as ethical accepting the sacrifice of another to ones self The Satanic view sees as ethical the reality of domination of the weak by the strong.

The story of how Rand fell out with the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard is instructive of her anti-conservative temperament (many versions exist; this one is attributed to Rothbards protégé, Prof Harry Veryser). In 1958, Rothbard and his wife JoAnn Schumacher

The movie "Atlas Shrugged" has the Left reeling. They fear it's potential spotlighting of the current regime. Check out Rotten Tomatoes.com and check the rating by critics. It's 6%. That is the lowest I've ever seen for a movie on RT. The audience rating on the same site is at 85%. I've likewise never seen that type of disparity. The commies are in full assault mode.

It's 6%. That is the lowest I've ever seen for a movie on RT. The audience rating on the same site is at 85%. I've likewise never seen that type of disparity. The commies are in full assault mode.

Either that or it's a really bad movie, on the level of Battlefield Earth or worse. Rand's novels are reminiscent of Hubbard's, both in content and terrible writing style. Johnnie Goodboy Tyler is kind of like a cave-man John Galt, no? Hubbard was also a satanist and a cult leader, by the way.

I’ve viewed some of her video interviews....she admitted she did not believe in God and did not see faith vital to the society as a whole, rather a mystical sort of thing people cling to which gets in the way of their ability to reason.

This was a sardonic reference to her stuff being quoted in the “Satanic Bible.” Of course I don’t believe in her twist on reality. God furnishes reason with a place to begin. She can disagree with the starting place, but she can’t furnish any alternative without an equally adamant dogma. Reason of itself can’t furnish premises any more than bookkeeping can cause a penny to appear in an empty checking account.

Good post! My opinion of her is she had only a portion of the package she might have had otherwise had she at least been open to the possibility of faith in God....therefore she herself took that mantel as I see it.

I didn’t care for the woman and noticed how she danced around questions which would have given some insight into her motives.

True, but really bad movies don't pull 85% audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm no great fan of Rand. Her fervent atheism aligns more with today's left, but her anti-statism clearly does not. Atlas Shrugged is her anti-state/pro-individual liberty masterwork and that is why they are trashing this movie.

That could be the work of diligent Rand cultists, swarming the polls. Rand's books sometimes get up there in the top 10, next to Brothers Karamazov and such. It can't be due to merit. Hubbard cultists behave the same way.

Atlas Shrugged is her anti-state/pro-individual liberty masterwork and that is why they are trashing this movie.

I thiink it's counterproductive for conservatives to rally around someone like Rand. I wouldn't want to see conservatives rallying around Hubbard either because he was, like Rand, a cult leader and a nut.

Good post! My opinion of her is she had only a portion of the package she might have had otherwise had she at least been open to the possibility of faith in God....therefore she herself took that mantel as I see it.

Ayn Rand considered collectivist priests as witch doctors who allied with the "brute" (dictators) to controll the masses and rendered freedom unattainable. Think of Ayatollas and dictators in Iran and the Islamic mideast in general and the lack of democratic freedom there and you have what she feared. Her view was grounded in a reality of contemporary times and history. Think Islam is the only problem? Check out India where Hindus kill christians. Check out Northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants blow each other up.

Not certain what your point is. But in our country we've enjoyed many years of freedom both politically and religiously. I don't think one should compare Islam and Hindus culture and way of life to Christianity. One lives a culture of death the other is all inclusive regardless of faith.

Either that or it's a really bad movie, on the level of Battlefield Earth or worse. Rand's novels are reminiscent of Hubbard's, both in content and terrible writing style. Johnnie Goodboy Tyler is kind of like a cave-man John Galt, no? Hubbard was also a satanist and a cult leader, by the way.

I don't recall "Battlefield Earth " having a high audience rating response. I have never been able to sit through a minute and a half of it. Who the heck is "Johnny Goodboy Tyler?" And why do you know anything about the insane L. Ron Hubbard's writing style?

I suspect the truth is that you have read L. Ron Hubbard's works more than you will ever admit, but have never read Ayn Rand's work. I recommend "Anthem" first, then "We the Living" to introduce her background before you try the thicker books.

I could not get through a page or two of Dianetics back in the Sixties, and that was back before Scientology was understood to be a lobotomized idiot cult. His supposed Science Fiction was to arcane and boring to even open a book.

19
posted on 04/25/2011 12:06:30 AM PDT
by higgmeister
( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)

I thiink it's counterproductive for conservatives to rally around someone like Rand.

In our modern times it is the best ally Christianity and Conservatives will ever find. The non-religion and anti-opression tenets staunchly oppose Evil Islam. The individual liberty and laissez-faire capitalism principles stalwartly oppose liberalism, socialism and communism and fascism.

In spite of Objectivism rejecting faith, its embracing rational self-interest and personal happiness as the guiding purpose of life grants any sovereign individual tacit license to hold personal beliefs as desired. Qbjectivism could never be an enemy but is an unwavering Paladin standing at the shoulder of our Civilization.

20
posted on 04/25/2011 12:23:02 AM PDT
by higgmeister
( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)

It comes as no surprise that the 1960s Church of Satan lifted most of its high-camp gospel from Ayn Rand. And, in turn, Rand may have lifted some of her gospel from earlier satanists like Ragnar Redbeard and Aleister Crowley.

Stuff-and-nonsense! Hasn't anyone read her work?!

Epistemology

"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Objectivism rejects mysticism! You can't have you cake and eat it to. Satanists believe in mysticism and the angel fallen from Heaven. All of this is balderdash and tripe. It is utterly impossible to find connections between Satanism and Objectivism.

21
posted on 04/25/2011 12:38:07 AM PDT
by higgmeister
( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)

...the 1960s Church of Satan lifted most of its high-camp gospel from Ayn Rand. One of its acolytes notes with approval that, Rands philosophy rejects as ethical accepting the sacrifice of another to ones self The Satanic view sees as ethical the reality of domination of the weak by the strong.

These two ethics positions have nothing in common - this entire article is brazen illogic. Rand witnessed the simple reality that no matter what selfless claims people cloak it in, they are always and only working for themselves and their own interests - so we might as well admit it and establish our laws around this plain truth. She was, in this way, trying to cut through the collectivist lies about "service," which is their main way of enslaving people.

The Church of Satan, to the absolute contrary, was openly advocating enslaving others.

What hubris the Left has over it's belief in it's mind-control tactics. Since they cannot dare critically analyzing Rand, they simply misrepresent her 180 degrees.

Contemptuous pigs.

25
posted on 04/25/2011 1:11:07 AM PDT
by Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)

"Check out Northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants blow each other up. I think the anger and hatred in Northern Ireland has more to do with the Brits taking over Irish land way back when, then instituting the govt, and putting transplanted Brits into the best jobs ... essentially treating the Irish as 2nd class citizens in their own country.

They characterize it in the media as a war between Catholics (predominantly Irish) and Protestants (Church of England) to cloud the real issue of self determination and national sovereignty

In our modern times it is the best ally Christianity and Conservatives will ever find.

Why do I need an atheist anti-Christian philosophy as an ally? That is a bizarre assertion. If someone wants to adopt a philosphy that has 'A is A', the principle of non-contradiction and a reasonable epistemology of the real world, they can choose something sensible, with a long history to it, like Scholasticism. It's been around a lot longer than Rand.

They characterize it in the media as a war between Catholics (predominantly Irish) and Protestants (Church of England) to cloud the real issue of self determination and national sovereignty

They may do that because Protestant Oliver Cromwell invaded and re-conquered Catholic Ireland in 1649. Then 40 years later the Protestant King William Of Orange, from the Dutch Republic of the Netherlands, sealed the religious feud by defeating Catholic King James II and taking the British crown. The real issue has always been Catholic against Protestant and not self determination and national sovereignty. The Northern Ireland Protestants are called "The Orangemen" due to their traditional fealty to William of Orange.

32
posted on 04/25/2011 1:49:02 AM PDT
by higgmeister
( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)

Why do I need an atheist anti-Christian philosophy as an ally? That is a bizarre assertion.

Hint: Because Liberalism - Socialism and Islamism is in a life and death battle for our existence right now and you will have a perfect opportunity to convert the Objectivist in the passion of the moment while you are down in the foxhole together!

Your obstinacy and intransigence is a bizarre position.

33
posted on 04/25/2011 1:56:32 AM PDT
by higgmeister
( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)

These kind of exaggerations of Rand's importance in the scheme of human history doesn't help to make the Rand cult sound any less loony.

Additionally, I am not even thinking of "importance in the scheme of human history," I am thinking of right this moment while we are witnessing Christians with their heads cut off by Satanic Islamists and our nation being defeated from within by Socialism up to the Commander-in-Chief!

Conservatives and Christians need to focus on the real enemies not the meaningless enemy of Ayn Rand rejecting faith. She never said let's kill all of the people that go to church as Islam and Communism have and a few of our Liberal enemies do every day.

1: Well, you know, she was an atheist and she had a weird personal life so her ideas are all crap.

2: Misrepresentation of her ideas.

I have yet to ever hear her ideas refuted logically. Ever. I disagree with her about the existence of God. I believe a logical argument can be made for the existence of God.
As for the rest of her philosophy I think she is right.

All the arguments I have heard for religion amount to “I believe because I believe”. The element of faith takes religion outside of reason. That was her point.

I would love to see her other ideas refuted honestly but I haven’t yet.

Objectivism rejects mysticism! You can't have you cake and eat it to. Satanists believe in mysticism and the angel fallen from Heaven. All of this is balderdash and tripe. It is utterly impossible to find connections between Satanism and Objectivism.

Actually, most real satanists say that they don't actually believe in "satan," per se, as a spirit or demonic force. Instead, they just believe in the "principle" driving satanism, that of man's own greatness, etc. - "satan" is merely a figurative symbol they use. It is, in fact, more similar to Objectivism than many Objectivists are likely to be comfortable with.

"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge."

Ironic, since this statement itself is a faith-based statement that meets Mizz Rand's own definition of "mysticism," since there is no way it can ever internally verify itself.

Stuff-and-nonsense! Hasn't anyone read her work?!

This brings up yet another point - which is that a lot of people HAVE read her stuff - we just don't think it's any good. Frankly, I didn't need Ayn Rand to teach me a thing about liberty. Her books are stiff, obnoxious idiocy, and I frankly find it to be a terrible commentary on the intelligence and knowledgeability of American conservatives that so many of us think that we have to read Ayn Rand's books or watch some movie about one to "learn about freedom." Truly, Americans increasingly have no discernment.

Rands publicity team, back in the late 1960’s responded to fan letters and were quick to explicitly state that Rand wasn’t married to Nathaniel Brandon, the man who was in charge of her public relations and everything else, and that her husband was Frank O’Connor . Rand was very much ‘into her self’. The Objectivist newsletter was boring and mundane not like the books. Rand was an avowed atheist and never entertained the idea of procreation. She was a true narcissist, a back stabber and no-one you would want to have as a friend.

41
posted on 04/25/2011 3:44:49 AM PDT
by x_plus_one
(Q:How many middle class debt slaves does it take to pay for Obama care? A: All of them)

From what I understand of Ayn Rand, she believed any form of altruism was foolish and ‘evil’ (in her understanding of what the word meant). Not the sort of position any right-thinking christian would or should ever take...

From what I understand of Ayn Rand, she believed any form of altruism was foolish and `evil' (in her understanding of what the word meant)

She considered force to be evil, not the act of giving, but being forced to give. She also considered it foolish to give money to a bum who has no interest in bettering himself, but I don't think she would consider that to be evil (you are conflating the two).

"In our modern times it is the best ally Christianity and Conservatives will ever find. "

That is similar to the saying, "our enemy's enemy is our friend" and like the same sort of reasoning Islam used to ally itself with the Nazis - using atheism to stamp out Judaism...simply because the opportunity presented itself. A parallel can also be seen in how Marxism/communism/socialism has allied itself with Islam, to stamp out its biggest enemy - Christianity...simply because the opportunity exists and presents itself.

Why in the world should Christianity deliberately ally itself with an anti-Christ? We are not of this world and neither is our goal. We are so far above that, that we have no desire and no necessity to make our enemy and God's enemy our accomplice. Alignment with an anti-Christ is not exactly a Christian goal.

I wonder how many people who’ve commented here have actually read the book or seen the movie?

I found the one theater in NE Wisconsin that was showing it and went to see it this past Friday night. The reviewer noted a “slow movie.” Well, I’m guessing that they saw a different movie. We all thought it moved along very quick, perhaps too quick.

Interesting and facinating movie. $5 cup of coffee, $37.50/gallon gasoline, inner cities crumbling and in kaos, educated professionals holding signs looking for work.... And it takes place in 2016.

Take it for what it is - a story. But at the same time, consider that this may be a look into our future.

Also consider why this movie hasn’t been picked up for a broader release. Oh, I guess there are so many other quality movies out right now - um, no.

I don’t need Rand either. I came to a libertarian outlook by taking time to read the Bible from cover to cover. When I was done I realized:

1. Man has free will to choose or reject God.
2. There are temporal consequences to rejecting God.
3. There are eternal consequences to rejecting God.
4. The temporal consequences are God’s way of making us understand when we’re not right.
5. If an authority of any kind takes “pity” on someone who has rejected God and tries to shield them from the temporal consequences of their actions (and their free will), they leave them at risk of the eternal consequences.
6. Anyone who says the state (or their church) should protect us from ourselves is holding that God doesn’t understand what He’s doing and we are better at saving people than God. (E.g., ‘protecting’ a 50 year-old from the evils of Beer on Sunday).

I don’t need a messed up Russian who doesn’t even keep her own name to make up some idea that “reason” replaces God. That’s not new to Rand either. Read Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky. He successfully debunks that notion, which was popular even in the 19th Century.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.